Welcome to the ZDoom Forums!

I see it now.

WFZS. Same ring and all.

Also if you need extensive testing at certain points, let us know. I'll happily jump aboard this ship.

Who cares? This is [b]Z[/b]Doom, so it has every right to call its scripting [b]Z[/b]Script.

Doomscript is a no-go, that name is saddled with too much backstory.

Probably not. I guess it's just me... :shrug:

@Graf: Fair enough.

Does it matter if the name is taken by a different game? Are there any real risk of confusion between Zelda Classic and ZDoom?

I thought I said this before:

ZScript's [url=http://www.shardstorm.com/ZCwiki/ZScript]already taken.[/url]

Don't get your hopes up. This is going to take time. I am currently trying to make constants.txt compile with the ZScript compiler and running into some problems already because at the moment DECORATE cannot access the constants defined within enums. (Update: That works now, the original code wrote the symbols to a scratch symbol table that was discarded right away.)

It is very clear that so far the compiler has only been tested in a sandbox so expect problems to surface now that it is getting real-life script code that needs to work in the existing framework of things thrown at it for the first time. Right now I have no plans to work on actual code generation, the first thing to be done is to let it parse Actor's class definition so that the basic framework is there. That alone will be quite a bit of work.

Ah, from randi I presume? Well, still, at least we're starting up again.

Something tells me that if it should come, it'll be ZDoom 3.0 I reckon. I mean, what a perfect number for a release candidate introducing doomscript.

(Let fate smile on us for ZDoom 3.0 to be before Doom's 30th birthday...)

It still will take a lot of time. I just started analyzing the compiler code, now that I finally have some code to play around with.

[quote="Graf Zahl"]Sorry, but this won't see any further extensions, we'd rather focus on making the real scripting language work now.[/quote]

Finally! I'm looking forward to this.

Okay that's fine! I look forward to that in the future!

Sorry, but this won't see any further extensions, we'd rather focus on making the real scripting language work now.

ACTOR THING 
    {
    CONST INT SOME_CONSTANT = 3;
    {
    STATES
        {
        SPAWN:
            TNT1 A 0 NODELAY
            { 
            SWITCH(CALLACS("SOME_SCRIPT"))
                {
                CASE 1:
                    { A_PRINT("CATS ARE FUN"); }

                CASE 2:
                    { A_SPAWNITEMEX("DOOMIMP",RANDOM(-32,32),RANDOM(-32,32)); }

                CASE SOME_CONSTANT:
                    { A_LOGINT(USER_VARIABLE1); }

                [...]
                }
            }
        }
    } 

I think it would be neat if we could use Switch/Case inside Anonymous Functions

For example: (a very simple and silly pseudocode)
[code=php]ACTOR THING 
    {
    CONST INT SOME_CONSTANT = 3;
    {
    STATES
        {
        SPAWN:
            TNT1 A 0 NODELAY
            { 
            SWITCH(CALLACS("SOME_SCRIPT"))
                {
                CASE 1:
                    { A_PRINT("CATS ARE FUN"); }

                CASE 2:
                    { A_SPAWNITEMEX("DOOMIMP",RANDOM(-32,32),RANDOM(-32,32)); }

                CASE SOME_CONSTANT:
                    { A_LOGINT(USER_VARIABLE1); }

                [...]
                }
            }
        }
    } [/code]

Would such a request be feasable? I think it would be a lot cleaner than a lot of If() statements. It's not the end of the world if this isn't doable, however it would be nice.